I was disappointed, but not particularly surprised, to receive a letter from the Scottish Legal Aid Board, notifying me that I would not be granted legal aid for my case.
The reason given was "due to the level of declared capital, the Board is not satisfied that the applicant is unable to meet the expenses of the case without undue hardship to him or his dependents".
I cannot understand the logic of this decision as I was awarded legal aid in 2010 when my assets were greater. Several people have suggested to me that the reason the Crown dropped the original charges and pressed "de novo" charges was in order to engineer a situation whereby they could evade the unwelcome prospect of prominent citizens being cross-examined by the redoubtable Donald Findlay QC.
My solicitor has applied for a review of this decision.
I would like to thank the many, many people who are continuing to support Hollie, Anne and myself. The facts of this ongoing case speak for themselves, and it is important to stress that we should at all times stick to the facts and not be tempted to stray into the realms of speculation and conjecture. Our supporters come from all walks of life and will have widely differing views on many subjects so it is essential that we remain focused on achieving justice for Hollie and do not get distracted by other issues.
Will you be starting a fighting fund? If everyone donated a small amount then I'm sure you would be able to cover the costs.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible to challenge this under Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?
ReplyDeleteThe McDonalds case did just that, Morris and Steele v UK. They won as it was held, the lack of legal representation was a breach of Article 6 ECHR.
Jo
On another note, have you seen Rebecca Television?
ReplyDeleteJo
John - I have no plans to start a fighting fund as I am fully committed to securing the legal aid which I believe I am entitled to.
ReplyDeleteJo - My lawyer quoted numerous examples of how my treatment breached the European Convention on Human Rights. This appeared to cut no ice with Sheriff Davies.
ReplyDeleteThank you for pointing out the Rebeecca Television website. Sadly, I do not believe that Hollie Greig's case is an isolated example.
There seem to be similarities in the way you are being treated and the methods adopted in the case of Ex Senator Stuart Syvret in Jersey. I am referring to the corrupt use of the legal systems to try and silence you both, plus trying to thwart any attempt at justice for the victims.
ReplyDeleteThe way Stuart Syvret has been harassed, arrested on fraudulent grounds and generally "got at", has been designed to make his life as difficult as possible.
The authorities in that case have also stuck two fingers at the Human Rights Act and EU Law.
These tactics seem to be the depths to which the authorities in both places will stoop to evade exposure and justioe for the victims.
Jo